Miscast in Movie Musical Adaptations- Page 2

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 2:27pm

Hugh Jackman and Aaron Twait (Yes he can sing but had zero screen presence) in Les Miserables 

The three leads of Phantom of the Opera 

Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth in Mamma Mia

John Travolta in Hairspray

 

I'm not usually a fan but I loved Madonna in Evita, in fact for me it's one of the best stage to screen adaptions there's been

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 2:34pm

Some of these I agree with, but some of these choices make me laugh. Hugely successful movies with celebrated ensemble casts and award-winning performances ... yeah, but they're "miscast."

 

Riiiigggghhht.

 

Perhaps your vision is miscast. Or your taste.

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 5:21pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: " ANN MARGRET?! She's the only salvageable aspect of that movie adaptation of Bye Bye Birdie."

 

 

 

 

Yes, dare I say Ann-Margret. Sure, the "performance" is iconic now but her character was not written as an over jesticulating, hot-to-trot pubescent nymphet. She was written as a sweet 16 year old teenager from wholesome-as-apple pie Middle America.

 

She was too old and too over developed for that role. By the time she sang the sultry "Bye Bye Birdie" (Reprise) at the end of the film she was literally shaking her t*ts at the camera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 1/20/16 at 05:21 PM

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 5:49pm

I think Ann-Margaret is one of the more heinous movie musical adaptation blunders. They completely reworked the story of Albert and Rosie into a vehicle for her. Why not just write a new beach movie for her??

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 6:57pm

Mr. Nowack said: "I think Ann-Margaret is one of the more heinous movie musical adaptation blunders. They completely reworked the story of Albert and Rosie into a vehicle for her. Why not just write a new beach movie for her??" 

 

LOL! Now imagine if they had cast Annette Funicello instead of Ann-Margret in "Bye Bye Birdie"? 

 

Yow-zah! Talk about over developed! 

 

[ozjust4]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 7:01pm

Madonna in "Evita".

[jo]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 8:16pm

best12bars said: "Some of these I agree with, but some of these choices make me laugh. Hugely successful movies with celebrated ensemble casts and award-winning performances ... yeah, but they're "miscast."

 

Riiiigggghhht.

 

 

 

Perhaps your vision is miscast. Or your taste."

 

 

 

Such as LES MISERABLES!  The film adaptation was never meant to clone Trevor Nunn's theatrical intent. It was meant to portray the "heightened realism" that Hooper intended for his cinematic vision.  It also drew back to many passages/ events and characterizations in the Victor Hugo novel which were not covered or were portrayed differently in the stage adaptation. 

 

It came out as a huge critical and commercial success.  I think we may need to view this issue with the right perspective and not solely on what our musical theatre-trained ears wanted to hear.  Filmmaking is a completely different medium compared to the stage.  Movies are a director's medium while the stage belongs to the actor. It is how the film director wants his creation to be perceived ( which we can either enjoy or dislike ) which is important.  The critics and the audiences both liked the film adaptation so the majority did approve of how the film adaptation went! I do remember the rapturous responses to the first New York ( which presumably included some Broadway fans, too) screening of the movie. And at the Oscars, there was a standing ovation when Hugh initially sang SUDDENLY ( a nominated song) and the whole ensemble did a full-scale interpretation of ONE DAY MORE!  So, in addition to critics and movie audiences, their peers also gave their thumbs-up!

 

 

 

[binau]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 8:22pm

To me, Hugh was perfectly cast in Les Mis. He had the voice, he had the acting chops, the look. And to top it all off he also had the box-office clout. One in a million - I can't think of any other actor that ticks all those boxes in the world.

The two leads of Sweeney Todd come to mind when I think of the word 'miscast'. However, they were completely appropriate for Tim Burton's vision for Sweeney Todd and their performances (plus the film) was well-executed (pun not intended) in general. The movie stands alone as a great piece of cinema, rather than a cheap adaptation of a stage production.

[jo]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 8:35pm

Agree on both counts, Qolbinau!

Hugh also had the theatrical background that probably helped him fuse the strengths of one medium to the medium of filmmaking. Tom Hooper was quoted several times at how he would not have wanted to do the film adaptation if he had not found Hugh Jackman.  And Cameron Mackintosh ( original producer of the stage version), Boubil and Schonberg (the composers), Nina Gold ( Casting Director), and the producers of Working Title ( a subsidiary of Universal Pictures), who were all present when Hugh did his 4-hour long audition,  all agreed!

I was quite surprised at how much I liked the film adaptation of SWEENEY TODD. I was practically choking at the last scene during the picture credits which showed Sweeney cradling his dead wife.  Very dramatic moment which encapsulated the theme of revenge which went awry.

Btw, I did see the SWEENEY stage version with Michael Cerveris and Patti Lupone -- and I must say that I did prefer the film adaptation better as an excellent form of storytelling and entertainment.

Sometimes the filmmaking medium has an advantage when portraying dramatic musicals and, in both cases, it came out as the better medium.











Updated On: 1/20/16 at 08:35 PM

[mamaleh]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 11:09pm

The most egregious examples of miscast in musicals that spring to mind: Peter O'Toole in MAN OF LA MANCHA and Pierce Brosnan in MAMMA MIA!.

I agree with Jo that no way was Hugh Jackman miscast. He has a solid background in musical theater and delivered a superbly rendered Valjean for film, deservedly recognized with an Oscar nomination.  Director Tom Hooper understands the difference between "park and bark" on stage and understatement on film.  No quarrels there.  As to Aaron Tveit in LES MIZ, I'd say he was underused.  I'd rather have seen him as Marius than Eddie Redmayne.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 11:37pm

How has no-one mentioned Roz Russell in GYPSY yet? 

I'll also throw in Cameron Diaz and Quevenzhane Wallis in that abysmal ANNIE remake for good measure.

 

[The Other One]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 7:21am

Kim should seem virginal, as though getting a first kiss on national TV is a huge, intimidating deal.  Ann-Margret in the singing of the title song and "A Lot of Livin' To Do" in "Bye Bye Birdie" seems anything but, although in the rest of the film she sort of does.  I think the reshoots got in the way of the more traditional approach, although had they not been done the movie would have been less successful with the public overall.

 

Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando are both miscast in "Guys and Dolls."  Sinatra should have played Sky and someone else, maybe Jackie Gleason, should have played Nathan.  Brando, wonderful actor that he was, especially in that time period, should have enjoyed the movie in the theatre like the rest of us.  (Well, I wasn't born yet but you know what I mean.)

 

I have always thought Jackman would have been better as Javert than Valjean.  I still do.  He is somewhat miscast in my opinion, although he is so committed he wears down your objections (at least until you try to watch the movie a second time).  

 

Julie Andrews's performances on the original cast recordings of "Camelot" and "My Fair Lady," both Broadway and London, can not be improved on.  She's not the actress that Vanessa Redgrave is and Audrey Hepburn was, however.  Not by a long shot.  The dreams Audrey is having during "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?' aren't even hinted at in footage of Julie singing the song on Ed Sullivan's Lerner & Loewe tribute, and it is unfair to even mention Vanessa's sensuality in comparison to Julie.  The songs would have sounded better in the film versions had Julie been cast, yes, but the films themselves?  Probably not.  She would have been fine, sure, but as we already have the albums with her, it's not really much of a loss.  (Another example: Julie is fine in "The Americanization of Emily," but the gents steal the movie. That wouldn't have happened with Audrey or Vanessa.)

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 8:12am

jo said: "Such as LES MISERABLES!  The film adaptation was never meant to clone Trevor Nunn's theatrical intent. It was meant to portray the "heightened realism" that Hooper intended for his cinematic vision."

 

And yet, it was a clone, except badly sung and on a pavement instead of a stage. This artform (acting through song) should per definition not be too literal. It should be a triumph of the fantasy. Use filmic editing, sung thoughts, elaborate cinematography, creating scenes that are in a character's mind instead of a blunt 1 taker on a pavement. Basically a live theatre performance on a pavement. That actually lowered the realism drastically. Realism with this material lies in other things.

 

Now, if at least Hugh Jackman gave a filmic performance, it could have been less bad. Instead, he imitated what he thought was "Broadway theatre" and exaggerated every vibrato and note to a cringeworthy level as if he was reaching for the backrow of the theatre. Every stage Valjean I have ever seen sang: "Now come on lady's, settle down". Jackman sang: "Now come oooon, lady's setlle doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooown". With crazy vibrato, 10 times too long and made it sound like a parody of musical theatre. To make it even worse he spoke the words that should be sung and he sang the words that should be spoken. "down" should be short. Period. If you stretch that, it makes the audience laugh. He does not understand this artform. 

 

So "heightened realism" my ass. Realism with this material on film lies in very natural singers who now which notes should be kept short and which should be held longer, natural vibrato, and most of all, elaborate filmic editing and cinemathograpy.

 

https://youtu.be/WcS1uIarnME?t=2m5s

 

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 08:12 AM

[mamaleh]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 8:25am

As to Jackman's being better cast as Javert, interestingly, according to interviews, his audition song back in Oz was "Stars," until a musical director told him it was all wrong for him.  But I also think he'd have been fine as Javert, too.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:01am

Princeton Returns said: "I'm not usually a fan but I loved Madonna in Evita, in fact for me it's one of the best stage to screen adaptions there's been"

 

I agree, I think it's the best stage to screen adaptation there is. I don't like Madonna in anything else, but the way it is edited and the cinematography and the quality of the audio makes it all work. I love the dance between her and Antonio, just a wonderfully executed dream-sequence, a thought in an undetermined space. Because that is what it is in their minds. I also love the fact that certain parts are not "sung" but more as a voice-over. This film uses al the great possibilities film has to offer. Another thing I love is a sequence like "The lady's got potential", where so much is happening, that the scene just sucks you in because of the clever way the information/story is told/edited. All these things are essential for a movie musical, because 1 take shots of a theatrical performance on a pavement don't work on film. The material is not that literal. Another favourite scene of mine is "Another suitcase in another hall". The instrumental break where she walks out of the office, and she is just too defeated to sing, but you still hear the voice. It's just wonderful. I also love the intro of "high flying adored" starting long before the scene starts. The opening sequence of the film is just haunting. And the Rainbow High sequence. It just works.

 

I do wish she had sung better but at least she does sound natural. That is the basic thing, This film feels real and natural.

 

So for a future Miss Saigon film I hope they take the Evita approach. "Last night of the world" must be big, red, hot, muggy, a rotating fan, bamboo bed, flyaway fabric, this is what is going on in their minds. This is their story and that makes it feel real.

They could also use the Les Mis approach and put them in a small, cold empty concrete room on a bed with no real mattrass, as it probably was and pretend that makes the emotions more "real", but that is not how film works.

 

Or when Kim shoots thuy, make it theatrical instead of in an alley between a wash line and a bin. It is the end of the world for her in that moment so create a big black space with a choir of ghosts.

And have a natural singer as Kim of course.

 

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 09:01 AM

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:21am

I highly agree with Aaron Tviet in Les Mis. I love him, but he was so miscast as Enjorlas. Enjorlas's voice is strong and can be operatic. His voice was thin. He'd be better off as another barricade boy.

I just can't believe that casting directors hosted open-calls for Cosette in NYC. And out of all of the talented musical theatre actresses/students, they still chose Amanda Seyfried, whose voice was so shrill and out of pitch.

[jo]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:12am

"...So "heightened realism" my ass. Realism with this material on film lies in very natural singers who now which notes should be kept short and which should be held longer, natural vibrato, and most of all, elaborate filmic editing and cinemathograpy"

"...To make it even worse he spoke the words that should be sung "




.

 

 

 

The film adaptation was not meant to be an operatic concert to display the beauty of natural singing.  It was meant to be a masterful storytelling  expressed through music. Acting choices were key, complemented by the appropriate singing choices. Many people expressed strong emotional reactions to VALJEAN'S SOLILOQUY, THE FINALE, EMPTY CHAIRS, as well as I DREAMED A DREAM in the film adaptation because they were portrayed with exceptional acting performances! Even THE CONFRONTATION was seen in a new light - more visceral! I didn't think it happened to the same extent in any stage production. Btw, I have seen the stage musical nine times - on Broadway, in London, in Paris and even where I live.  

Re speaking the words that were sung instead in the stage musical -- why should he not, if he is thinking that he has found inner peace after he decided that telling the truth about his identity was the path that he should follow! Thus, he speaks the name " Jean Valjean" in WHO AM I -- in an almost serene tone, instead of shouting it to the rooftops - because of the inner peace that he has found ! Excellent acting choice once again!

 

The film was completed with a budget of only $ 60-61 million and given the scale of the storytelling and the range of the talent involved in the movie, that was quite an achievement. Besides, Paris of that time frame had already changed since Baron Hausmann re-envisioned it, and filming it where it actually happened was no longer possible.  So, where can one expect the cinematography choices to take place except in most cases on a sound stage.  It did get nominations for production design.  And if you were simply referring to the way Hooper directed his cinematographer on how to film a particular scene or portrayal, that is this Oscar-winning director's choice on how to tell the story visually-speaking...The original director's cut was about 20 minutes longer (which he decided to prune to its official length of around 2.5 hours) and Hooper had to work on a very short post-production period from end- of- filming in late June to late November to allow it to be released by early December.  That is the reality of show business in Hollywood, because it was not considered a blockbuster movie which is always given a wide latitude in budgets and completion process.  Despite the constraints, Hooper did get a nomination ( 1 of 5) from the Directors Guild... At that time, budget considerations were key because the movie musicals genre had not been fully re-accepted.  Les Miserables did pave the way for the renaissance of the genre because of its critical and commercial success.

 

The film adaptation may not sit well with some people, but a great majority ( worldwide box office and DVD sales for USA of over $ 500 million and favorable reviews from most of the critics, plus Oscar/SAG/BAFTA/Golden Globe nominations and awards) did approve how the film adaptation turned out!

 

To each his own!

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/awards?ref_=tt_awd























Updated On: 1/21/16 at 11:12 AM

[Jshan05]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:16am

ozjust4 said: "Madonna in "Evita"."

Couldn't agree more. I still can't get over how much they had to transpose the score to suit her mediocre voice. Just think about how amazing it would have been to get Patti LuPone's version caught on film (besides at the LCT archives.) Not only would it have been a marvel to watch her, it would have shot her to more mainstream stardom! 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:18pm

jo said: "The film adaptation was not meant to be an operatic concert to display the beauty of natural singing.  It was meant to be a masterful storytelling  expressed through music. Acting choices were key, complemented by the appropriate singing choices. Many people expressed strong emotional reactions to VALJEAN'S SOLILOQUY and THE FINALE as well as I DREAMED A DREAM in the film adaptation."

 

Then why did Hugh Jackman treat it as such. Like I said, he is imitating theatre singing (settle doooooooooooooooooown) while every stage Valjean I have seen gave a more intimate and filmic performance and kept the word short. This was by no means "masterful storytelling expressed through music". It was way too theatrical. A bad imitation of an operatic concert on a pavement.

 

Now, I agree, the only scenes in the film that work are the ones where the character is crying through the song. But this film is a presentation of "good acting in spite of song", instead of "mastering the craft of acting through naural singing and use the songs", which it should be.

 

People were laughing in the theatre, that is not appropriate for a scene where he reads Marius' letter for example. 

 

 

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 12:18 PM

[mamaleh]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:18pm

In LES MIZ, what "should be" sung and "should be" said are totally up to the director, who had his cast perform the songs many, many times over until he chose the perfect live take--or at least the one most to his liking.  Nothing looked like it was on a fake "platform" to me; it all seemed much more natural than a park-and-bark presentation.  One may not care for a particular performer's style or tone, but it cannot be denied that the majority of film professionals--not we wanna-bes or dilettantes on forums such as these--thought highly enough of Jackman's performance to nominate him for the Oscar.  That's good enough for me.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:27pm

Mamaleh, that is exactly where the problem lies. This director did not understand the craft of the art. He has no feeling with the material and it shows. He had some kind of illusion in his head that "as bad singing as possible, preferably everything spoken with a strange long note in the middle (in the wrong place)" is the solution to "realism". It is not, it makes the singing funny, weird and misplaced. It tends to work only with crying scenes, because then it can be blamed on "emotion" of the actor, but in every other scene does not work. This art is per definition not literal. This film is too literal. 

 

His lack of understanding also shines through in the editing. For example when the bishop sends away the guards and starts to sing "but remember this my brother", the timing of the editing is awful. The guards are still there. There is a pause in the music for a reason.

 

I see a bunch of actors struggling with the music and singing and some people mistake that for struggling with the problems they are supposed to portray as a role. That's why only crying and frustration works. They are constantly fighting against the singing and find it distracting from their acting.

 

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 12:27 PM

[hork]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:31pm

mamaleh said: One may not care for a particular performer's style or tone, but it cannot be denied that the majority of film professionals--not we wanna-bes or dilettantes on forums such as these--thought highly enough of Jackman's performance to nominate him for the Oscar.  That's good enough for me.

 

Actually, it can be denied. The majority of film professionals didn't nominate him. Only actors nominate other actors, and it doesn't take a majority of them to nominate someone. It just take enough votes to make the top five.

 

[hork]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:40pm

And I'm with Dave, the movie's terrible. The singing is laughably amateurish, the acting is mediocre, and for some reason Hooper shot it almost entirely in close-ups, ugly wide-angle shots, and Dutch angles. It's a hideous movie all around.

[jo]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:44pm

"People were laughing in the theatre, that is not appropriate for a scene where he reads Marius' letter for example. "

 

Where I saw it, I heard the snicker not because of the manner of singing but because people thought he was actually jealous of Marius!  That was part of the discussions we had after seeing the film. If you remember from the novel by Victor Hugo, there were quite a few   passages which spoke of how Valjean was actually jealous of Cosette moving her affections to another man, when Valjean has had her under his care for such a long time.  It was not a momentary feeling but it lasted for a long time.  That was why even BRING HIM HOME was a song of conflict that was resolved with his affection for Cosette winning over his jealousy.  Not just a prayerful plea!

 

That was why I said earlier that the film adaptation was not a clone of the stage musical. The stage musical only dwelt on the epiphany he found through the kindness of the bishop leading to the early road to redemption.  In the film, the second epiphany ( which was well-highlighted and discussed thoroughly in the novel) was how he found love when he found Cosette.  That was the passage which gave birth to the song SUDDENLY.  Also, the period of time from when he had taken her away from the Thenardiers was glossed over in the stage musical ( la...la...la...) while in the film, they found refuge in the convent ( where they will spend her growing up years).  The melody (later heard as Empty Chairs) was sung in an ecclesiastical manner by the nuns who will rear little Cosette into womanhood.

 

If  everyone gave the film a chance, without comparing it to the stage musical, one will be able to appreciate what a powerful tale this dramatic musical is!

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 1:08pm

"Bring him home" in the film adaptation doesn't even come close to acting anything.

 

I just see a poor man fighting against singing and struggling enormously with the notes.

 

Very uncomfortable and almost embarrassing to watch.

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 01:08 PM